Sigma Photography
scope and traditional SLR?
Hello all, I just joined your group yesterday. I posted a similar question then, but I probably put it in a bad spot as it isn't getting noticed. I'll try again giving my question a thread of its own.
I've been shooting traditional film cameras (mostly SLRs) for years. Recently I've been trying to capture the beautiful songbirds in my yard on film. Difficult. I have several problems with this. First, the lens I am using is not at all appropriate for the task. It is a semi-soft 300mm with a 2x converter making an even softer 600mm (slow too). I wasn't too upset by this at first because I wanted to see if my technique was good enough to warrant spending more money on this new hobby; to see if my composition and timing were up to snuff. I'm happy with what I've learned - but now it is time to think about better optics. However, another challenge crops up, even at an effective 600mm I am not happy with the reach, I always find I wish I had at least 800-1000mm in focal length. I could live with it being somewhat slow - but yet I don't want to buy a mirror lens because I hate the "donut" look of highlights. I like the beautiful effects I see in images I've created with my zeiss, yashica and canon optics. But none of those are really in the budget for even a 400mm fast lens.
So what then? An idea. I was reading about digiscoping rather enviously. One site in particular made my jaw drop.
http://www.laurencepoh.com/
http://www.laurencepoh.com/gallery/...N22389_copy_001
However, I still like film. So, I wondered what might be possible with a spotting scope and a film SLR. I found something! Zeiss (my favorite optics maker bar none) makes the diascopes you're probably familar with, but they also make an adapter for using a SLR! I called the Zeiss office in the US this morning and a very nice young guy told me what he could. He isn't a photographer but it was still helpful. He said I would get an effective 1000mm with an aperature of 1:12. (I assume that's f-stop 12) I could live with that - if it really works. Meaning, if the image is sharp and no color fringe, no vignetting. Can anyone help me learn more about this? I have never used a scope for anything - and this is a big investment in my opinion. Less than a 400mm/f4 zeiss lens, but still very expensive to me.
Please give me your thoughts about such a set up. And if you have any pics at all from using any scope with any traditional SLR I would love to see them!!
Thanks very much,
-Lynn
PS: I understand that the same SLR mount that I might use with the Zeiss (with addition of a T2 adapter) would also work with a higher-end digital SLR that doesn't have a fixed lens. Meaning, if it works with my Canon A2, shouldn't it work with the Canon Digital-SLRs too?
Hi Lynn,
I suspect that in practice you will be unhappy with the results of a scope+ SLR via an adaptor. Lack of light will be the big issue. If starting with a fixed aperture of F12-ish you will have a correspondingly slow shutter speed which will effectively blur hyperactive wee birds.To compensate you would need to use fast & therefore grainy film or with digital SLR high ISO settings with resultant increased noise. The other issue is camera shake -even with a good tripod vibrations in the scope/camera combo will produce image blur that will only be compensated for by a fast shutter speed -an option that you will effectively not have.
I suspect the solution lies with a digital compact (such as a Nikon coolpix model-cheap 2nd hand 990s or 995s are often available) + scope adaptor or the purchase of "heavy glass"-preferably with image stabilistation (just re-mortgage your house!).
Best wishes,
Steve
Thanks for the reply Steve. I do appreciate it.
You've got a point that might just shoot down the whole plan - I'm familar with the issue of vibration - a tough one to deal with really. I've done everything from bean bags creative placement of tripod legs for extra stabilization, to placing the entire camera and lens flat on my window sill on the bean bag perfectly still and fired with cable release. Not all easy things to deal with when you can't place your subject just where you want them 
If it is worse with a scope, then I am beat.
The parts that don't bother me are (1) I wasn't too upset at using fast film - believe it or not, I found the best combination of film was to push Agfa RSX 200 to 1600. It doesn't go as contrasty as Provia and the colors hold very nicely. Actually it's quite lovely even pushed those 3 stops.
(2) I got good at focussing in the low light afforded in an effective F11. (not that I like it, but I figured how much worse can f12 be?
*Sigh* back to the drawing board. I've noticed that my favorite digital images that I've seen online have been created exclusively with the Nikon 990 and the Leica scope, or Zeiss scope. The colors and resolution are just beyond anything else I've seen. Here's a question though: I know the 990 only offers 3+ megapixels. If I bring that into photoshop at 300 dpi what is the actual size of the image I get out of the camera? And does it record in raw or tiff mode rather than jpeg?
Thanks for any further tips you might want to offer. This helps me make a better decision of where to spend the hard earned dosh!
-Lynn
PS: Scotland happens to be my favorite place to visit (only been twice)! Lucky you to live there!